preview_nft_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that the preview contains no context body and only entity counts, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose read-only behavior, output format, whether it's a preview of a snapshot, auth requirements, or side effects. For a data-preview tool this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise — a single line in Japanese with a parenthetical clarifying scope. It's efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it omits behavioral details that could earn their place, so while it's concise, some brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the preview returns. It states 'entity count only,' but doesn't clarify which entities, how counts are grouped, whether perspersona is required for preview filtering, or the relationship to generate_nft_snapshot and get_nft_listing. For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this leaves significant ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'persona' parameter, which the schema documents as 'ペルソナ名'. The description doesn't clarify how persona relates to the NFT preview (does it filter the preview by persona?). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter, though the description adds no semantic enrichment beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool displays an overview of Mini data (no context body, entity count only), identifying a distinct purpose: previewing NFT data rather than generating or listing it. However, it doesn't use an explicit verb+resource structure and is somewhat ambiguous about what 'Mint' refers to or what 'data preview' produces. It partially distinguishes from siblings like generate_nft_snapshot and get_nft_listing, but not clearly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool references. The description doesn't explain when to preview NFT data versus when to use get_nft_listing, generate_nft_snapshot, or get_nft_data. Context is implied by the name (preview) but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.